INADEQUACY OF AN UN-INHERITED SYSTEM
Chief Instructor, Shaolin Wahnam Switzerland
The following discussion by Sifu Andrew Barnett is reproduced from the thread Chaoyi Fanhuan Qigong in the Shaolin Wahnam Discussion Forum on 7th September 2005.
"An inherited system is inherently superior to a system newly invented by one person. No matter how intelligent or knowledgeable a person is, he cannot conceivably be better than thousands of genuine Masters over many hundreds of years."
To add a further reply to Panu's question:
“Does the fact that it is not inherited make the system inadequate and how much of the content in inherited systems is really untouched?” -- Panu.
A simple answer is that an inherited system is inherently superior to a system newly invented by one person. No matter how intelligent or knowledgeable a person is, he cannot conceivably be better than thousands of genuine Masters over many hundreds of years.
The Shaolin Arts taught and practiced withing Shaolin Wahnam were not invented by Sifu Wong nor even by his own Masters. These Arts are the accumulated and collective wisdom and practice of thousands of Masters during 15 centuries. By whatever means, Sifu Yap invented CFQ during a period of, perhaps, 30 years.
The fact, therefore, that CFQ is not inherited makes it far, far less adequate when compared to an inherited system like Shaolin Chi Kung which has been continuously developed over a period of about 1500 years by literally thousands of Masters.
Much of any system which has continually developed over 1500 years "would have been touched". In other words, the Shaolin Chi Kung we practice now may well not be identical to what was practiced 500 years ago - or even 50 years ago for that matter. As a living art with a 1500 year history Shaolin Chi Kung is continuously changing to suit the needs of the time. For example, a student practicing 50 years ago might have taken 6 months to achieve a chi flow whereas our students can achieve the same (or better) in just 3 days. Change and refinement over a long period time is quite different from inventing a new art out of the blue --- or even out of the cosmos.
More significantly, an inherited system is time-tested whereas a newly invented system is not. Sifu Yap believes that cultivating internal force is bad for health. That is his opinion and the opinion of his followers. But that cultivating internal force is good for health is not merely an opinion. It is an established fact. This fact has been tested and proven by many millions of Internal Art practitioners over hundreds of years.Andrew
Hello Andrew, I agree with many of the points you raised in your post, but this one point seemed a bit wrong to me, based solely on what I've read in this and the other thread on CFQ.
Does Sifu Yap say that cultivating internal force is bad for karma? If that's what he said it's one thing, but if he said its bad for health then Sifu Wong, you Anthony, Joan and many others would be very unhealthy by now after all this cultivation and that doesn't seem to be the case. I myself would be unhealthier than I was last year (when I went to my first Chi Kung course) and the opposite is true. I feel much healthier.Shaolin Mike
8th September 2005
“Does Sifu Yap say that cultivating internal force is bad for karma?” -- Shaolin Mike.
Yes, he and his students say that internal force is bad for karma, and also bad for health. They say that it may overcome health problems on one level, but that ultimately internal force "is not conducive to health" (to quote one of Sifu Yap's students).
Obviously, Sifu Wong is a shining example of how internal force is conducive to health.Anthony
More posts on this topic can be accessed at